On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 12:54:19PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's not quite so good for translators, I think. > > > > Another option is that we could just say "relation" (table, foreign > > table, etc...) or "type". ?We use the word relation as a more generic > > version of table in a few other places.
Seems fine. > Or how about passing an ObjectType? Then we could specify > OBJECT_TABLE, OBJECT_FOREIGN_TABLE, or OBJECT_TYPE. Could this be done without a several-line blob of code at each call site to determine the answer? If and only if so, this sounds better. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
